We've never seen the Klingons conquered by the Hur'q, or the Hur'q overthrow, we've had only glimpses of pre-united Bajor, we have one line of onscreen dialogue referencing the founding of the Dominion (the pre-Vorta rescued the Founders, so the Founders rewarded them by making them the Dominion's managers), we haven't actually seen any of the Hebitian Age (unless you count the Oralian Way, who are more a Hebitian relic than a living society), we know little about the Vulcan/Andor war, and nothing about the Tellarites. . .

We've never seen the Klingons conquered by the Hur'q, or the Hur'q overthrow, we've had only glimpses of pre-united Bajor, we have one line of onscreen dialogue referencing the founding of the Dominion (the pre-Vorta rescued the Founders, so the Founders rewarded them by making them the Dominion's managers), we haven't actually seen any of the Hebitian Age (unless you count the Oralian Way, who are more a Hebitian relic than a living society), we know little about the Vulcan/Andor war, and nothing about the Tellarites. . .

Click to expand...

All good points! The history of the Trekverse has plenty of interesting places for stories to emerge.

Admiral Archer is very much alive and well in Trek 11 - no reason he shouldn't be in the Prime universe.

Click to expand...

They never said it was Jonathan Archer. As far as we can tell from the canonical information in the film, it could've been his son or granddaughter.

Not to mention that the Abrams film was set nearly a decade before Prime-timeline TOS. If it were Jonathan, he would've been pretty damn ancient in 2257 (145 years, to be precise, which would be astonishingly old for a human of that generation). His odds of making it to the TOS era proper would be extremely slim.

And for what it's worth, the IaMD bio screen had Archer die in 2245, though I don't think that part was seen on camera.

Admiral Archer is very much alive and well in Trek 11 - no reason he shouldn't be in the Prime universe.

Click to expand...

They never said it was Jonathan Archer. As far as we can tell from the canonical information in the film, it could've been his son or granddaughter.

Not to mention that the Abrams film was set nearly a decade before Prime-timeline TOS. If it were Jonathan, he would've been pretty damn ancient in 2257 (145 years, to be precise, which would be astonishingly old for a human of that generation). His odds of making it to the TOS era proper would be extremely slim.

And for what it's worth, the IaMD bio screen had Archer die in 2245, though I don't think that part was seen on camera.

Mike Sussman wrote the IaMD bio as an easter egg for OCD fans who recorded, paused, zoomed in and had HD. Bad Robot wrote an easter egg into the dialogue for Enterprise fans to pick up on (and they are on record saying it's meant to be the guy from Enterprise. Scott Bakula assumed it was meant to be him, too)

So.... what's more binding? Dialogue or an unintelligible screen graphic?

Mike Sussman wrote the IaMD bio as an easter egg for OCD fans who recorded, paused, zoomed in and had HD. Bad Robot wrote an easter egg into the dialogue for Enterprise fans to pick up on (and they are on record saying it's meant to be the guy from Enterprise. Scott Bakula assumed it was meant to be him, too)

So.... what's more binding? Dialogue or an unintelligible screen graphic?

And, FWIW, Archer did more time travelling than anyone else in Trek!

Click to expand...

I've always thought life expectancy in Trek is a bit low for that far in the future, and there's always the time travel aspect...

Mike Sussman wrote the IaMD bio as an easter egg for OCD fans who recorded, paused, zoomed in and had HD. Bad Robot wrote an easter egg into the dialogue for Enterprise fans to pick up on (and they are on record saying it's meant to be the guy from Enterprise. Scott Bakula assumed it was meant to be him, too)

So.... what's more binding? Dialogue or an unintelligible screen graphic?

Click to expand...

That's a contradictory argument. What the filmmakers said offscreen and what Mike Sussman wrote offscreen are of exactly equal canon value, i.e. none. They both come from producers and they're both offscreen information, so it makes no sense to treat one as more authoritative than the other.

In terms of onscreen, canonical information, all we actually know is that there is an Admiral Archer in 2258 and that he or she owned a beagle. We have no onscreen evidence to prove that's Jonathan Archer instead of Richard Archer or Susan Archer or Takuya Huitzilopochtli Archer III. And actuarially speaking, given what we know about life expectancy in Trek, the odds of a human born in 2112 still being alive in 2258 would be staggeringly low, so it's immensely more likely to be a different person named Archer.

Mike Sussman wrote the IaMD bio as an easter egg for OCD fans who recorded, paused, zoomed in and had HD. Bad Robot wrote an easter egg into the dialogue for Enterprise fans to pick up on (and they are on record saying it's meant to be the guy from Enterprise. Scott Bakula assumed it was meant to be him, too)

So.... what's more binding? Dialogue or an unintelligible screen graphic?

Click to expand...

That's a contradictory argument. What the filmmakers said offscreen and what Mike Sussman wrote offscreen are of exactly equal canon value, i.e. none. They both come from producers and they're both offscreen information, so it makes no sense to treat one as more authoritative than the other.

In terms of onscreen, canonical information, all we actually know is that there is an Admiral Archer in 2258 and that he or she owned a beagle. We have no onscreen evidence to prove that's Jonathan Archer instead of Richard Archer or Susan Archer or Takuya Huitzilopochtli Archer III. And actuarially speaking, given what we know about life expectancy in Trek, the odds of a human born in 2112 still being alive in 2258 would be staggeringly low, so it's immensely more likely to be a different person named Archer.

Click to expand...

It could easily be contradicted if it's not on screen...and possibly be contradicted even if it was !

- The Good That Men Do by Andy Mangels and Michael A. Martin: Published 2007
- Kobayashi Maru by Andy Mangels and Michael A. Martin: Published 2008
- The Romulan War: Beneath the Raptor's Wing by Michael A. Martin: Published 2009
- The Romulan War: To Brave the Storm by Michael A. Martin: Published 2011

Click to expand...

I was wondering, are they any good?

Click to expand...

I enjoyed them. My only problem with them is that both Romulan War books had information that was not needed in the story. I know that with To Brave the Storm it had to be wrapped up quickly. But there was still some info in there that was not needed. If you read them you will see what I mean. I though did enjoy them and am glad that I did.
And The Good that Men Do was good because it gave you a totally different perspective of "These are the Voyages". Even though I have seen it several times, after reading the book I had to go back and rewatch it thru new eyes. Made me hate the episode less.